The Instigator
xXCryptoXx
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
stubs
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

It Better to Have Lived a Christian, Than to have Lived an Atheist.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
xXCryptoXx
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/28/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,207 times Debate No: 37048
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (98)
Votes (2)

 

xXCryptoXx

Pro

I will be taking the Pro position for this debate, meaning I am debating in favor of the resolution.


Definitions

Christian - A Christian who adheres to and practices the teachings of Jesus Christ, worships God, and recognizes and obeys divine law.

Better - Comparitive to good or well, in this case, it is more good (Including terms of overall happiness in life) to have lived the life of a good Christian, than to have lived the life of an Atheist. In this case, we will be debating who is "better" in terms of overall happiness in life (This will be most important in the debate), eithcal values, the positive affect given to others, and which is the overall "better" life to live.


Other definitions will not be needed.

Standard rules apply.

Forfeit results in an automatic loss.

First round is for acceptance.
stubs

Con

I accept this debate. I want to reiterate what pro said, "In this case, we will be debating who is "better" in terms of overall happiness in life (This will be most important in the debate)" as I think this will be what the debate is centered around. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
xXCryptoXx

Pro


Introduction


Thank you Stubs, for accepting this debate. I do hope it will be fun and intellectually enlightening. I would also like to note that although this debate is going to be mostly about overall happiness, it is also about ethical values, positive-affect on others, ect. as stated in round one.


“Radical obedience to Christ is not easy... It's not comfort, not health, not wealth, and not prosperity in this world. Radical obedience to Christ risks losing all these things. But in the end, such risk finds its reward in Christ. And he is more than enough for us.” – David Plat


This is a great quote, really summarizing the life a true Christian must live In order to truly fulfill their faith. In fact, what this quote holds is greater than what I think many people think. You see, what this quote entails, is that Christian search for true happiness always. Now, in essence, only some all loving, Omnipotent God could possibly give the happiness Christians seek, but because they can only truly seek God through the lives they live, they are always set on finding this happiness. In the end, even if a Christian is not in their greatest comfort, or isn’t wealthy, or his not liked by many, a Christian will not care nor will it affect their happiness because a true Christian is one who separates their desires from the physical world, and searches for true happiness in the next. In addition to all of this, a Christian is always happy in their life because for every moment they are serving God, they become more and more confident that that all loving omnipotent God does exist, that he is watching over them, and that they will be with him for eternity in the next life.



The Win-Win Situation


In the very ideology of this, a Christian is always in the “win-win position”, whereas and Atheist is always in the “lose-lose position”.


Let me summarize the win-win position:


For as long as the Christian believes in God and serves God, they are under the impression that God cares, loves, and will always be with them in their worldly life, and will ultimately be with them in the next life. If God doesn’t end up existing after all this, the Christian still lived a great life because not only did they think God was always watching over them (Allowing them to get through our darkest of times), but they also believed they would see their loved ones and be with God forever in Heaven. This means that whether the Christian God exists or not, the Christian always wins.


Let me summarize the lose-lose position:


The Atheist will live in a world where they believe there is no God, and that being said this means there is no ultimate source of happiness, the evil of the world will never be ultimately vanquished until we have all died off, and that there is no all-knowing, all loving, omnipotent being that watches over them and helps them through their darkest times. In addition, if they are to die, and the Christian God is to have existed, then they will most likely, under what the Bible states clearly, go to Hell.



Now after reading both of these, we can come to the logical conclusion that it is better to have died Ignorant believing in God and being happy, than it is to have died being wrong, living a life that will inherently have suffering that is harder to get passed, and then be punished in the afterlife.


Then, if the Christian ends up being right, they enter Heaven and find ultimate happiness.


If the Atheist is right, nothing happens. At least the Christian was under ignorant happiness.



“Jesus tends to his people individually. He personally sees to our needs. We all receive Jesus' touch. We experience his care.” – Max Lucado



Morality and the Dedication to What is Good


“Do all the good you can. By all the means you can. In all the ways you can. In all the places you can. At all the times you can. To all the people you can. As long as ever you can.” – John Wesley


This summarizes the kind of dedication a Christian has to spreading good morals throughout the world. One of the largest objectives in the life of the Christian is to eliminate as much sin and suffering in the world as they can. This can be anything from donating money to the poor, listening and giving advice to others with problems, standing up to bullies, to much larger issues like helping those in poor countries, trying to find peace in war, to directly going to heal the sick and injured who cannot afford or have the experience to do it themselves.


This dedication to do all the good they can in a world of pain in suffering comes through God. The best part is, a true Christian does not help others because they seek eternal life, a true Christian helps others because they seek to fulfill God’s plan of defeating sin and suffering.


Christians inherently have this kind of dedication to spreading good throughout the world.


This argument focuses on the ethical values and positive affect on others that Christians have.


Long Term Happiness vs. Short Term Happiness


An argument that I anticipate from my opponent is that the Atheist can splurge in their worldly desires and be happy, something that a Christian cannot. The Atheist can shamelessly choose to never help anyone, or to lust, or to be greedy. It is recognized that all of these things bring short-term happiness. However, this is all irrelevant and does not put the Atheist at a more advantaged position because the Christian is just as happy even when they do not commit such acts, for as long as they believe that God is with them and watching over them, and that they will have eternal life, they will always be happier than any Atheist could ever be.


In addition, the moral values of the Christian are also something that is long term, and overall give more happiness to the Christian.


For example, the Atheist may choose to lust and have sex many the time, without shame.


However, this comes with its own risks, from accidental emotional attachment during intercourse that was just supposed to be for “fun”, to accidental pregnancy.


A Christian values the act of sex as one associated with love, and saves the act for the one they truly love, and are married to, making sex a special act since it was specifically saved for that person. In addition, the Christian does not assume the risks that sex for fun may have.


Good morals are something that allows more happiness in life, but only if the person is willing to take the time to fulfill these moral values. Christians inherently have this kind of dedication to good morals because of the direct teachings of God and because of the desire to do God’s will.


Conclusion


I have shown that Christians are inherently in a win-win situation allowing them to live a happy life separate from the sufferings of this world. I have also shown that that Christians have a dedication to do good and help others, and also live a life of long-term happiness, which is ultimately better than short-term happiness.


Sources


http://www.goodreads.com...


http://www.christianbiblereference.org...


http://www.biblebelievers.org.au...


stubs

Con

First off I want to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I also want to thank Pro for starting such an interesting debate. I enjoyed reading through Pro's attempt try and convince us of his point of view. I think he made some good points, but there were holes in his logic and I will proceed to point them out in the upcoming rounds.

I'm glad that my opponent started off with that quote from David Plat. Let me re-post part of that quote, "Radical obedience to Christ is not easy... It's not comfort, not health, not wealth, and not prosperity in this world. Radical obedience to Christ risks losing all these things."

Sound like much happiness so far? Let's look more at what a true follower of Christ's life looks like. In Matthew 8 it says, "Jesus replied, 'Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.'" In Luke 14 it says, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters yes, even their own life such a person cannot be my disciple."

Being a follower of Christ is hard. When we look at the stories of Jesus calling his first disciples he basically just says, "you guys have to leave EVERYTHING if you want to follow me."

Next we come to what Pro calls his win-win situation. In this he says, "If God doesn"t end up existing after all this, the Christian still lived a great life because not only did they think God was always watching over them (Allowing them to get through our darkest of times)"

This is entirely independent of being a Christian. If God doesn't end up existing than Atheist all the same could have still lived just as great life. They also would have gotten through their life's darkest times without the "emotional crutch" that so many refer to God as.*

He then goes on to explain how the atheist is in a "lose-lose" position. He says, "The Atheist will live in a world where they believe there is no God, and that being said this means there is no ultimate source of happiness" Anything can be a source of happiness. No where in round one did you show evidence that God was the "ultimate source" of happiness. With as much evidence as you have provided: God, money, sex, ect are all equal sources of happiness. Then he even goes on to say, "In addition, if they are to die, and the Christian God is to have existed, then they will most likely, under what the Bible states clearly, go to Hell." This is assuming the Christian God exists, which we obviously can't do for this debate. I could just as easily say what if the Christian dies and learns that there is actually a god who exists who punishes Christians. That would be a real lose-lose situation. Giving up your whole life for the God you believe existed only to learn that there was actually a god who punished Christians.

The next argument my opponent makes is a morality problem for the atheist supposedly. This, however, is under the false pretenses that an Atheist cannot do just as much moral good in the world as a theist. I don't think anyone actually believes that, but pro even goes on to say, "Christians inherently have this kind of dedication to spreading good throughout the world." which is not true. Christians are called to help others, yes, but Christians are not born with some inherent will to help others more than atheist.

I was not even planning on making an argument based upon long term happiness vs. short term happiness so I won't address that specifically, but I did take issue with one thing pro said in that section. He said, "for as long as they believe that God is with them and watching over them, and that they will have eternal life, they will always be happier than any Atheist could ever be." Yet pro has not shown that to be true. Certainly, thinking you will have eternal life is comforting and will make you happy, but so will so many other things that the atheist can be a part of.

In conclusion, when we actually read the gospels we see that the lives of the early disciples were actually extremely difficult. Jesus called them, and us as Christians, to give up all that we have. Most of them lived in such radical obedience that they were martyred. Becoming a Christian is an easy thing to do, living out your life in a way that God calls you to is extremely hard. Secondly, there are no reasons to believe that an atheist cannot do as much moral good as a Christian.

I thank my opponent for his round one post and I look forward to hearing more of his arguments in the future. Thank you.

*I don't actually believe God to be an "emotional clutch" but I know many atheist claim that.
Debate Round No. 2
xXCryptoXx

Pro


Introduction


Thank you for your response.


My opponent seems to miss the point I was making in my opening argument on the life of the Christian. I have already admitted that the life of a Christian can be very difficult, if I had not known that prior to my opponent’s response I would not have specifically used that quote from David Plat talking about the following Christ isn’t easy. The point I made was that despite the many risks and suffering being a follower of Christ might have, they are still achieving happiness by following God, whom they believe the ultimate source of happiness to be.


This puts Christians at an inherent advantage over atheists in happiness. The atheist defines their happiness by successful they have been with their worldly desires. The Christian’s happiness can be found not only in worldly desires (Some worldly desires seeing that Christians are actually taught to leave many things of this world behind to follow Christ) but also in their desires in God. Even without their worldly desires they are still achieving happiness because they believe they are following the will of God, who is the ultimate source of happiness (if not in ideology.)



The Win-Win Situation


“If God doesn't end up existing than Atheist all the same could have still lived just as great life. They also would have gotten through their life's darkest times without the "emotional crutch" that so many refer to God as.”


He is where you are wrong, you see even though both Atheists and Christians have the same opportunity to live a good life, Christians inherently have more dedication and a higher will to act upon living a good life because they have a goal in doing so, which is uniting with God in Heaven. In addition, an emotional crutch is not bad at all, but actually advantageous to have. It allows Christians to get through their sufferings far easier. Then if the Christian God does end up existing, they are rewarded for depending on God when they were in need.



In response to me talking about how Atheists have no ultimate source of happiness:


“Anything can be a source of happiness. No where in round one did you show evidence that God was the "ultimate source" of happiness. With as much evidence as you have provided: God, money, sex, ect are all equal sources of happiness.”


I apologize; I thought that it was rather clear that God is only the ultimate source of happiness. I will clarify. It’s quite simple, you see if God exists, and God created everything, then God created all things good and all things that make us happy. It would only be logical to believe that God is the ultimate source of happiness since all good things derive from him, and humans naturally seek what good. Love, is what humans desire most, and as stated in the Bible, God is love in itself.


Money, sex, ect. are not equal sources of happiness because they do not provide an eternal happiness, only a temporary happiness. God being the ultimate source of happiness means that the happiness that derives from him is eternal, and not temporary like that of worldly things.



In response to my statement that if the Christian God exists then Atheists will go to Hell:


“This is assuming the Christian God exists, which we obviously can't do for this debate. I could just as easily say what if the Christian dies and learns that there is actually a god who exists who punishes Christians. That would be a real lose-lose situation. Giving up your whole life for the God you believe existed only to learn that there was actually a god who punished Christians.”


However, even if the Christian God exists the Christian is still at an inherently better position at living a better life because of their desire to be with God and follow him. In terms of a worldly life (which is really all we can debate since we don’t know what is after this life), Christians are still at an inherently better position to live a good life. In fact, even though I will admit that the “lose-lose” part of that argument was weak, it is actually over all irrelevant to the debate, seeing that the only thing we can actually argue in terms of living a better life is by judging the Atheists and Christians worldly life. This being said, right now the most relevant argument of this debate is the argument I made in my opening Introduction.



I would like to note that my opponent completely dropped my argument on the “Win-Win Situation”. He attempted to look like he argued against it by arguing about ultimate happiness, but that hardly appropriately contended to my arguments at all.



Morality and Dedication to Good


“The next argument my opponent makes is a morality problem for the atheist supposedly. This, however, is under the false pretenses that an Atheist cannot do just as much moral good in the world as a theist. I don't think anyone actually believes that, but pro even goes on to say, "Christians inherently have this kind of dedication to spreading good throughout the world." which is not true. Christians are called to help others, yes, but Christians are not born with some inherent will to help others more than atheist.”


Never did I argue that the atheist cannot do as much good in the world as a Christian. However, it is undeniable that Christians have an inherent advantage to the dedication to do what is morally right do to their belief in God. It’s logically to believe that Christians will be keener to do what is morally right because it is how they achieve eternal life and ultimate happiness. Atheists do not believe in eternal life, ultimate happiness in God, ect. ect. therefore they will not feel as obliged to do what is morally correct. This is logically reasoning, and my opponent does nothing to refute it except say “that’s not true”.



Long Term Happiness vs. Short Term Happiness


I would like to note that this argument was not something that was optional for my opponent to contend to or not, and that this was actually a legitimate argument I have put forth in this debate. My opponent has chosen to drop the majority of this argument except for one statement that I will defend now.


“He(Me) said, "for as long as they believe that God is with them and watching over them, and that they will have eternal life, they will always be happier than any Atheist could ever be." Yet pro has not shown that to be true. Certainly, thinking you will have eternal life is comforting and will make you happy, but so will so many other things that the atheist can be a part of.”


I have shown this to be true through the arguments I presented earlier, ranging from the emotional crutch that God is, to how Christians can suffer in this worldly life and still be happy people in terms of their spiritual life, to how Christians value long term happiness over short term happiness, and that long term happiness in generally better. Christians are happy though, because they believe that evil will ultimately be destroyed, because they will share a life of ultimate happiness with God for eternity, and that they will see their loved ones again after death. It is these things that make the Christian truly happy, and it is these things that allow Christians to live an overall better life than atheists.



I look forward to your response.


stubs

Con

I would like to thank Pro for his attempt to refute my arguments.

Pro opens up by saying, "The Christian's happiness can be found not only in worldly desires (Some worldly desires seeing that Christians are actually taught to leave many things of this world behind to follow Christ) but also in their desires in God. Even without their worldly desires they are still achieving happiness because they believe they are following the will of God, who is the ultimate source of happiness (if not in ideology.)"

This is great, and I agree that Christians can be achieving happiness because they believe they are following the will of God. This, however, does nothing to prove Pros argument that Christians are happier than atheist because they think they are following the will of God. Pro can talk all he wants about how happy Christians are because they think they are following the will of God, but until he shows that atheist cannot achieve the same happiness through other means than the argument is useless.

Further pro goes on to make a silly statement by saying, "He is where you are wrong, you see even though both Atheists and Christians have the same opportunity to live a good life, Christians inherently have more dedication and a higher will to act upon living a good life because they have a goal in doing so, which is uniting with God in Heaven."

Christians do not "inherently have more dedication" to living a good life. It takes about five seconds to look out into the world and see that. Atheist also have a goal in living a good life. There are, actually, many goals such as: simply wanting to be a good person, and/or make a positive impact in the world.

Pro also says, "In addition, an emotional crutch is not bad at all, but actually advantageous to have. It allows Christians to get through their sufferings far easier." I'm not sure if this statement is more offensive for Christians or atheist. Have you ever talked with a single mom working three jobs who is struggling just to put food on the table for her kids? Have you ever talked with a homeless man who is starving and unable to sleep for fear of sleeping in a place where he could be arrested? Because I have, and to say that these people who are Christians are getting through their sufferings "far easier" is repulsive to me. Secondly, God is not the only emotional crutch. Atheist can have other things as emotional crutch's such as: money, sex, family, and friends. Christians often time use these other emotional crutches as well. The other option is also simply getting through things without an emotional crutch. There's no reason why someone cannot go through something without an emotional crutch and still be happier than someone who is using God as an emotional crutch.

My opponent said, "It would only be logical to believe that God is the ultimate source of happiness since all good things derive from him, and humans naturally seek what good." I am going to assume my opponent meant "seek what is good." but if I am wrongly assuming please correct me and I apologize in advance. My opponent has told me he is a Christian and I am glad for that, but his theology seems to be far from orthodox with this statement. Humans do not naturally seek what is good. Genesis 6:5 says, "The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time." Genesis 8:21 says, "The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done." These are just two of the numerous biblical examples that show that humans do not naturally seek what is good as my opponent has claimed. My opponent either has to say that he is a Christian, but does not believe the words of the bible, or he has to admit that this argument is invalid.

Pro boldly proclaims, "Money, sex, ect. are not equal sources of happiness because they do not provide an eternal happiness, only a temporary happiness. God being the ultimate source of happiness means that the happiness that derives from him is eternal, and not temporary like that of worldly things." Belief in God is simply an equal source of happiness because as long as we are on this earth we, the voters, can not decisively say that belief in God is an eternal happiness. From our perspective right now in this debate there is no way you can say that belief in God is an eternal happiness without assuming that the Christian God does in fact exist which we are not doing for this debate.

Pro tries to reiterate his claim that, "However, even if the Christian God exists the Christian is still at an inherently better position at living a better life because of their desire to be with God and follow him." I have already shown this to be false. Atheist can have an even greater desire to live a good life because of their desire to be a good person simply for the sake of being a good person and wanting to help society.

Pro makes the accusation that I dropped his win-win argument. He's essentially correct. I didn't take the time to respond to it because it doesn't help his argument in the least and I know the voters recognize this, but I will point out why now. Correct me if I'm wrong but reading over the win-win section again, it looks like you say that the Christian goes through there life believing that God exists and that helps them in life and then if it's true, they win. If it is false, they still had the security of it through their whole life which is also a "win." This is a cool post and I actually agree with it, but none of it shows that Christians will be happier, have better morals, or have more of a positive effect on society than atheist which is exactly what Pro set the resolution to.

My opponent goes on to talk about morals and says, "Never did I argue that the atheist cannot do as much good in the world as a Christian. However, it is undeniable that Christians have an inherent advantage to the dedication to do what is morally right do to their belief in God. It"s logically to believe that Christians will be keener to do what is morally right because it is how they achieve eternal life and ultimate happiness. Atheists do not believe in eternal life, ultimate happiness in God, ect. ect. therefore they will not feel as obliged to do what is morally correct. This is logically reasoning..."

To say that this is logical reasoning is being intellectually dishonest. Christians do not have in inherent advantage to the dedication to do what is morally right. Christians and atheist have different reasons for doing what is morally right. Christians do it because it is what God has commanded. Atheist do it for the simple sake of being a good person. Not to mention that by saying that you never did "argue that the atheist cannot do as much good in the world as a Christian" you negated 1/3 of your resolution which says, "the positive affect given to others."

I look forward to hearing my opponents response.
Debate Round No. 3
xXCryptoXx

Pro


Introduction


Thank you for your response.


My opponent once again seems to misunderstand the point of my arguments. He agrees with the kind of happiness Christians have specifically, then argues that my arguments do nothing to prove that Christians are happier people than Atheists. The point of the argument is to show that Christians have certain inherent advantages to being happier than Atheists.


“until he shows that atheist cannot achieve the same happiness through other means than the argument is useless.”


This point is not mine to argue. You must argue that atheists can achieve the same happiness through other means (which you have not yet done. In fact, all you have argued throughout this debate is that until I show that Atheists aren’t as happy then I lose. I’m arguing the advantages Christians have, as you should argue what advantages Atheists have).




The Win-Win Situation


“Christians do not "inherently have more dedication" to living a good life. It takes about five seconds to look out into the world and see that. Atheist also have a goal in living a good life. There are, actually, many goals such as: simply wanting to be a good person, and/or make a positive impact in the world.”


I opponent claims that Christians don’t have an inherent dedication to doing good in the world, but never argues why. I have given logically sound reasons for this and instead of refuting them in a reasonable way he just argues “No they don’t” then moves on.


I do not deny that some Atheists want to live a good life. However, they do not have an inherent dedication to helping others, and doing what is moral. However, it’s a lot easier to go out and do the right thing when you are aiming for eternal happiness.



“Pro also says, "In addition, an emotional crutch is not bad at all, but actually advantageous to have. It allows Christians to get through their sufferings far easier." I'm not sure if this statement is more offensive for Christians or atheist. Have you ever talked with a single mom working three jobs who is struggling just to put food on the table for her kids? Have you ever talked with a homeless man who is starving and unable to sleep for fear of sleeping in a place where he could be arrested? Because I have, and to say that these people who are Christians are getting through their sufferings "far easier" is repulsive to me. Secondly, God is not the only emotional crutch. Atheist can have other things as emotional crutch's such as: money, sex, family, and friends. Christians often time use these other emotional crutches as well. The other option is also simply getting through things without an emotional crutch. There's no reason why someone cannot go through something without an emotional crutch and still be happier than someone who is using God as an emotional crutch.”


My opponent makes and argument from emotion, with no logically sound reasoning backing up his arguments. As a stated before, it is sound reasoning to presume that Christians are able to get through their sufferings easier than those who are Atheists due to believing that an all-loving, omnipotent God is watching over them and helping them through times of trouble.


Unlike God, money, sex, family, friends, ect. are not an emotional crutch that will always be there for you, always watching over you are, and have the power to stop all your suffering.


Christians have a much “sturdier” emotional crutch, since in belief, theirs’ never fails.



Morality and Dedication to Good


“Humans do not naturally seek what is good. Genesis 6:5 says, "The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time…"


I apologize; the “good” I was using meant happiness, not morally good. I meant humans naturally seek happiness.


So, when I made the statement, "It would only be logical to believe that God is the ultimate source of happiness since all good things derive from him, and humans naturally seek what good." I meant that humans naturally seek happiness and that true happiness derives from an ultimate since of morality.


Since God is the ultimate source of morality, ultimate happiness comes through him.



“Belief in God is simply an equal source of happiness because as long as we are on this earth we, the voters, can not decisively say that belief in God is an eternal happiness. From our perspective right now in this debate there is no way you can say that belief in God is an eternal happiness without assuming that the Christian God does in fact exist which we are not doing for this debate.”


It is not an equal source of happiness, since in belief he is the ultimate source of happiness, therefore you will tend to be more happy thinking that ultimate happiness is ahead of you in the afterlife.


Think of it logically. Who will be happier? The person who eats some delicious food, or the person who believes that an omnipotent, all loving God, is watching over them, and that you are going to be with him in Heaven to see your loved ones, and live in eternal happiness?


It doesn’t matter whether the belief is a reality or not. It’s kinda like Santa. Kids are much happier when they believe he exists, even if he does not.



“it looks like you say that the Christian goes through there life believing that God exists and that helps them in life and then if it's true, they win. If it is false, they still had the security of it through their whole life which is also a "win." This is a cool post and I actually agree with it, but none of it shows that Christians will be happier, have better morals, or have more of a positive effect on society than atheist which is exactly what Pro set the resolution to.”


One again, my opponent gives an argument where he claims it is a false, or logically unstable argument then gives absolutely no reason why. Christians will be happier because they believe that an omnipotent, all loving God, is watching over, and that you are going to be with him in Heaven to see your loved ones, and live in eternal happiness. They are going to have better morals because they will have a dedication to live a good life through God’s commands. They will give a positive affect to society because of their dedication to good, put in action. All of this is logically sound, and you have done nothing to refute it.



“Christians do not have in inherent advantage to the dedication to do what is morally right. Christians and atheist have different reasons for doing what is morally right. Christians do it because it is what God has commanded. Atheist do it for the simple sake of being a good person. Not to mention that by saying that you never did "argue that the atheist cannot do as much good in the world as a Christian" you negated 1/3 of your resolution which says, "the positive affect given to others."


Yes, they do have different reasons for doing what is right. However, Christians will be more obliged to do what is right since they have the goal of eternal happiness in mind when they do it. Atheists will not be as obliged because there is no ultimate goal in mind except helping others, because they believe that this is the only life we have and I think many would much rather spend that time focusing on their own personal happiness, and because they believe everything is ultimately temporary anyways.



Please Keep In Mind That My Opponent Completely Dropped the Argument: Long Term Happiness Vs. Short Term Happiness.


Vote Pro!


stubs

Con

Seeing that this is the last round I would like to take this time to thank my opponent one last time for setting up this debate. I will try to keep this last post as short and to the point as possible. Please keep in mind it is not my burden of proof to prove that it is better to have lived an atheist, simply that it is not necessarily better to have lived a Christian.

If you remember in the very first round this debate Pro defined better as "Comparitive to good or well, in this case, it is more good (Including terms of overall happiness in life) to have lived the life of a good Christian, than to have lived the life of an Atheist. In this case, we will be debating who is "better" in terms of overall happiness in life (This will be most important in the debate), eithcal values, the positive affect given to others, and which is the overall "better" life to live."

As you can see, Pro divided the resolution up into 3 main categories: Overall happiness, ethical values, and positive affect given to others. I will go ahead and summarize these three categories throughout the debate.

Overall happiness: Pro has said that Christians achieve more happiness thinking that an all knowing, all powerful God is looking over them than an atheist can achieve by means of anything else. This claim has been fairly unsupported besides the long term happiness vs. short term happiness argument which pro has claimed I dropped, but I actually had responded to it. I will post the response again just in case Pro skipped over it in the earlier rounds. Christians simply believe their happiness will be a longer term happiness than atheist. Besides that this has nothing to do with the level of happiness, none of the voters know if the Christians happiness will be longer term or eternal, and to vote Pro for this category would be extremely biased because you would have to actually assume Christianity to be true to confirm it.

Ethical values: I feel as if this one is probably the most obvious of the three categories. Whether someone believes in objective moral values or not has no bearing on what kind of values they do have. While I am not obligated to make an argument that atheist have better ethical values, I think one example is certainly in regards to homosexuality. Not homosexuality itself, but simply the treatment of homosexuals by Christians has been horrendous and I would argue atheist treat them better.

Positive effect given to others: I know I said that ethical values was the most obvious of the three but I must have forgot about this one. In round three Pro actually concedes this point by saying, "Never did I argue that the atheist cannot do as much good in the world as a Christian." This is exactly what "positive effect given to others" is. Since this point is conceded I will not make any further arguments.

I thoroughly enjoyed this debate started by Pro and I thank him for doing so. I hope that in light of this debate it can spark some interesting thoughts and conversations among other people. Thank you to all the readers and voters for your time. Have a great day.
Debate Round No. 4
98 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Orangatang 3 years ago
Orangatang
Lacking debate. I could see how Con understands much of what atheists usually believe however Since he is not an atheist I think his rebuttals and arguments were not as good. There are many other points an atheist can make like the nonbelief of an all knowing unchallengable around the clock survelillance is quite liberating and comforting for the atheist lifestyle. Furthermore, many arguments based on comfort and happiness from a consistent and rational worldview were not made.
Posted by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
< Actually if I am correct, humans naturally seek the existence of God, and then may later choose to deny it.
I'm pretty sure humans are born naturally theistic.

Actually, no. Humans just seek answers and sometimes attribute it to god. For example, Chinese religions like Daoism did not attribute things to god, but impersonal forces, as an explanation. Confucianism was thoroughly secular. This is not exclusive to China alone. For example, the Indian religions of Jainism and Buddhism.
Posted by stubs 3 years ago
stubs
@Robert, I wouldnt say that believing in Christianity is necessary to counter that. I would say that God is necessary to counter that and can work through both theist and atheist alike.
Posted by stubs 3 years ago
stubs
I agree that God created humans good. I disagree that, as you said in the debate, they generally seek what is good. God said, "every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood." Does that sound like a heart that would generally choose good?
Posted by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
I'm sure the bible itself might say other things elsewhere, but I just looked at what was within the debate.
Posted by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
Actually if I am correct, humans naturally seek the existence of God, and then may later choose to deny it.
I'm pretty sure humans are born naturally theistic.

Also humans are not inherently evil, we know this from the Genesis account from when God created the world, and said that everything was good. This tells us that humans are not inherently evil, but instead just generally choose to be evil (Generally through misunderstandings of morality, short term happiness, ect.)
Posted by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
I mean, essentially, humans are naturally atheistic, so those biblical quotes really did not help your case.
Posted by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
Yes. I mean, in your refutation, you said that humans do not naturally seek what is good, which would mean that the external force, Christianity, is necessary to counter it. "humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood." If you have any further questions, let me know.
Posted by stubs 3 years ago
stubs
@classicrobert, although you voted against me I do appreciate the thorough RFD. One thing I especially took interest was that you said something to the extent of my biblical quotes about man being inherently evil, were in conflict with also stating that atheists can do more good than Christians. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the bible, but I think Romans actually takes care of that alleged conflict. If you want to debate anything let me know.
Posted by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
There are likely many typos in my transcript. Also, some parts of the video were impromptu.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
xXCryptoXxstubsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Also in comments, and so will the transcript. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9chkCp7yLRw&feature=youtu.be
Vote Placed by yoyopizza 3 years ago
yoyopizza
xXCryptoXxstubsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Stubs had better arguments, I loved that they were applicable to both sides, Christians and atheists. Crypto's arguments were grounded in the assumption that the Christian god exists. Conduct was good overall, I was tempted to give it to stubs but I realized it was just my bias and went neutral. I'm not one to judge on spelling, I just don't notice/look for it. Arguments to Stubs because again, very logical and applicable to both sides. I gave sources to Crypto because he was the only one to use them.